From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10181 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2002 19:55:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact sourcenav-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: sourcenav-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9534 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 19:55:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out1.apple.com) (17.254.0.52) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 19:55:06 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1DJt3Q01039 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:55:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:54:41 -0800 Received: from saxophone (saxophone.apple.com [17.202.41.155]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1DJt2G05455; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:55:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:19:00 -0000 Subject: Re: SN backend GPL or LGPL? (was: SourceNav release...) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v480) Cc: sourcenav@sources.redhat.com To: Robert Hartley From: Syd Polk In-Reply-To: <3C6A9292.7BB4B877@ics.com> Message-Id: <90FC0288-20BB-11D6-A405-0050E4C09301@bayarea.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480) X-SW-Source: 2002-q1/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 On Wednesday, February 13, 2002, at 08:21 , Robert Hartley wrote: > If we did have the back end torn off of SN, would that make everything > that used also GPL? > > Can we take SN type GPL code, turn it into a library, and then use it in > an LGPL way? No, Red Hat made us release everything as GPL'd. Since Red Hat owns the copyright, you can contact them for a version with LPGL'd backend. > > What if we had some sort of Corba type middle ware that provided a > decent distributed API, without actually linking the code in. Would any > application that connected to it still be bound by the GPL? I don't think so. As long as you are not linking any of the libraries, you should be ok. > > I am trying to find out here if there is any room for commercial > developers to contribute to SN. It would be a shame to let it all go to > waste. > > Thanks, > > Robert > > >> From: Mo DeJong >> To: "Eray Ozkural (exa)" >> Cc: sourcenav at sources dot redhat dot com >> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:45:27 -0800 >> Subject: Re: SourceNav release ... > >> I think the right solution is to turn the SN backend into a >> library. Even if you don't reuse the code, the ideas that are >> there have years of effort behind them and they do work. It should >> make use of Berkeley DB to store symbols but through an API so >> that people can swap out other database layers if they want to. It >> should also provide a nice two phase parse and dump into symbol DB >> sequence that is easily inspected. Just figuring out what and >> where the problem with a parser is can be the most difficult part >> of fixing a problem. Also, it is absolutely critical that a well >> defined regression test framework is developed as part of the >> library. > > Syd Polk QA and Integration Manager, Mac OS X Development Tools +1 408 974-0577